Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

The DNA test actually proved that she ISN'T Native American, and that she might be as little as 1/1024th Native American.

If Trump and Warren had a million dollar bet on this (they didn't, but if they did), and if I were arbitrator, I would rule it a "no bet". The terms weren't specific enough. Warren could claim that the 1/1024th is still enough to where she shouldn't lose, and Trump could claim that the amount is so insignificant that it's not at all in the spirit of what he was betting (plus that Native American tribes require you to have 1/16th of their heritage in order to claim membership).

If she had shown proof that her great grandmother was Native American, then I'd say that Trump welched. But not here.
The DNA test didn't prove she isn't as Native American as she said. Only thing i've seen was the claim of 5th generation ancestor and that's still on the table. It's only likelier after the DNA test.

Native tribes requiring 1/16 also isn't true. Range is 1/4-1/32 and none of them give you anything from just having a DNA test. DNA tests can't differentiate tribes.

1/7th of her sample couldn't be assigned to any ethnicity. DNA testing for ethnicity has been around 15 years. At this point it's slightly more credible than elaborate hand waving. It's such an exact science that it doesn't matter if you use samples from SA or NA Natives.

After 7th generation the blood of your ancestors starts getting washed very rapidly. The 10th generation that keeps getting mentioned (1/1024 bit) is already mostly washed away. You only have blood from 13% of those ancestors. From 900 10th generation ancestors you don't have any DNA in you.

Oh and i only cared about the DNA part in this story. The rest is your domestic politics that isn't likely to spill, so i don't really care. Though not a fan of strawmen and moving goal posts.

She claims to be Cherokee.

The tribe only considers you Cherokee if you have a direct ancestor on the "Dawes Rolls" -- a census taken between 1899 and 1906.

http://webtest2.cherokee.org/Service...ip/Citizenship

This means the ancestor could be born as recently as 112 years ago (only 43 years before Warren was born), or as long ago as the early 1800s. (I'm assuming there was no one over 100 on the Dawes Rolls.)

Since Warren was born in 1949, six generations back would disqualify most of the people on the Dawes Rolls (they'd have been dead by 1899). 8 generations back would disqualify all of them.

The rest of your post seems to further discredit Warren, as you're stating that it's an "inexact science" and basically impossible to prove Native American heritage back 7 generations through a DNA test. So that would make her release of the DNA results (and the mainstream media's subsequent fawning over it) that much more ridiculous.

Bottom line is that claiming a racial identity from a single maybe-relative from 200 years ago is absurd, and Elizabeth Warren needs to own that misstep, rather than doubling down on it and trying to release "proof" that she was right all along.